Cancel invoice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotation hints (idempotent, destructive), the description adds that the document stays in the system, keeps its number, and is marked cancelled to avoid series gaps. It also mentions reversibility via restore_invoice and warns that it changes the status of a real fiscal document.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using three short paragraphs. The first clearly defines the action, the second provides usage context, and the third gives a critical user confirmation warning. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what happens on cancellation, reversibility, alternatives, and user safety. It is complete for correct agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it voids an invoice, specifies the effect (keeps number, marked cancelled, no gap), and distinguishes from sibling tools delete_invoice and create_reverse_invoice. The verb 'void' and the term 'anulare' add specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use (invoice issued in error) and when not to, naming specific alternatives (delete_invoice for last in series, create_reverse_invoice for storno). Also instructs to confirm with the user before calling, which is crucial for a destructive operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.